The World Affairs Board is the premier forum for the discussion of the pressing geopolitical issues of our time. Topics include military and defense developments, international terrorism, insurgency & COIN doctrine, international security and policing, weapons proliferation, and military technological development.

Our membership includes many from military, defense, academic, and government backgrounds with expert knowledge on a wide range of topics. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so why not register a World Affairs Board account and join our community today?

Big battle, but not sure its impact on the global stage merits inclusion. So far as I can tell, it simply removed China as a US ally for about 20 years leading to one stalemate war, then it was a US ally again until the Cold War ended. No real border changes or (lasting) grand re-alignments of balance of power. Pearl Harbor which you brought up brought the US out of isolationism in a big way and doomed the Axis. It also lead to the creation of the US Navy as the big kid on the block. A situation which persist to this day.

I thought the list was " the most decisive battles of all time," not those with a global impact.
My bad.

Wrt Germany.In the 1910's they were scared to death of the growing Russian power.Inevitably,either the Germans fight the Russians sometime after 1914,or the Russians encroach on the Austro-Hungarians and the Germans,precipitating a war.And if the Germans fight the Russians,the French attack the Germans.So the basic scheme of WW1 would have happened anyway.The only thing debatable is the extent of British involvement.

In ordinary power-politics, the economic development of the Russian Empire would have posed no insuperable threat to German sovereignty. Putting together an offsetting coalition in the event of future potential Russian aggression should not have been especially difficult, given the number of the natural allies Germany would have found for such a purpose. Besides Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire, Britain and Japan would also have direct interest in blocking Russian aggression. There would also be no way that France would have an interest in seeing Russia dominate Central Europe.

But Germany found itself in a bind because they had burnt so many bridges. The building of a powerful fleet antagonized Britain. The annexation of provinces antagonized France. Note that both those things were done contrary to Bismarck's advice. Wilhemine Germany was unwilling to pay the price to gain future allies against Russia.

That was because Wilhelmine Germany had hegemonist intentions of its own. Their fear of Russia's modernization was not simply due to concern for their own safety. What they also feared was that Russia's modernization would render impossible Germany's own dream of European dominance. Hence there was a strong faction among the German leadership wishing to wage war to prevent Russia from becoming a modern state. They nearly succeeded.

Pearl Harbor which you brought up brought the US out of isolationism in a big way and doomed the Axis. It also lead to the creation of the US Navy as the big kid on the block. A situation which persist to this day.

In fairness to the Japanese leadership, they must have planned the war during the late summer or fall of 1941, at a time when it looked probable that the Soviet Union was going to collapse in the face of the German invasion.

Given that assumption, the grand strategic outlook would be quite different. A substantial part of Germany's war effort would come available once again to threaten Britain, and presumably the USA would be forced to divert much of its massive potential to averting catastrophe across the Atlantic. Under those circumstances, Japan's southern strategy might not have been all that far-fetched.

In fairness to the Japanese leadership, they must have planned the war during the late summer or fall of 1941, at a time when it looked probable that the Soviet Union was going to collapse in the face of the German invasion.

Given that assumption, the grand strategic outlook would be quite different. A substantial part of Germany's war effort would come available once again to threaten Britain, and presumably the USA would be forced to divert much of its massive potential to averting catastrophe across the Atlantic. Under those circumstances, Japan's southern strategy might not have been all that far-fetched.

US went Germany first... In the battle of production We beat the pants off japan with both arms tied behind our back. The Japanese leadership made so many assumptions that proved to be dead wrong. Because they planned for a short war they never corrected several fatal flaws; 1. lack of wingmen for fighter pilots, 2. lack of mechanics for air fields, 3. lack of damage control training on ships, 4. lack of ramped up ship building (fleet, merchant and escort) going into the war, 5. Overly complex plans that diluted forces, 6. no pool of trained pilots to act as a strategic reserve and 7. did no really use submarines to interdict transport and supply shipments to Australia or Hawaii, and 8. lack of logistics planning. The two big Japanese success during the war- Singapore and the Philippines are do at least as much to really bad allied commanders as any Japanese acumen at war. At the end of the day, the Japanese infantryman's ability to absorb and dish out punishment by itself was not enough and no better than Allied troops after 1942.

Agincourt - An English solider was killed by a cannon ball, the first to do so and ended the medieval period. Ameins 1918, the first battle fought successfully as an all arms action by the Allies.

The Battle of Britian, where Fighter Command fought of the Luftwaffe.
El Alamein, as Churchill said, before that we did have any victories.
The Fleet Air Arm attack on Taranto, which indirectly led to Pearl Harbour, after the attack the Italian navy were wary of making contact with the Royal Navy.
The Battle of Matapan, where a combination of Cunningham's guile and cunning plus, raw intercepts being sent from Bletchley Park meant Cunningham knew exactly what the Italians were doing and so could change his tactics. the result was a disaster for the Italian navy who then very rarely sortied from their harbours.

The Siege of Kohmia, where a battalion plus assorted units, held off a Japanese Division for a fortnight and stopped the Japanese planned Go Go invasion of India.

Another surprise is no battles from the Seven Years War, which gave the Anglos dominance in both the Western Hemisphere and in South Asia.

Right, I wonder why no one mentioned the Battle of Quebec and/or Quiberon Bay.

“We had been hopelessly labouring to plough waste lands; to make nationality grow in a place full of the certainty of God… Among the tribes our creed could be only like the desert grass – a beautiful swift seeming of spring; which, after a day’s heat, fell dusty.”
― T.E. Lawrence, Seven Pillars of Wisdom: A Triumph

I always find most decisive battles in history discussions end up as people trying to divine greater meaning out of a given afternoon. Take centuries of warfare among societies and try and grab a few battles and then try and create higher meaning and shoe horn relevant topics into their outcome.

Waterloo - the Prussians/Russians had already smashed the Grand Armee and his German vassals had defected. Article guy pulled a bunch of crap out about this leading to democracy...
Vienna-1 - they came back and anyways had to deal with Turko-Persian, Polish, Russian... etc.. enemies...
Manzikert - Byzantines went on for four centuries.
Talas - both sides ended up losing Central Asia anyways. Hell Turks ended up ruling the Islamic World and extorted the Tang.
Nuking Japan - they were already looking for a way out
Hastings - yawn... err... England ended up with a French speaking elite for some centuries then ummm...yeah... I don't get it...
The Armada - England went on to seek less than favorable terms with Spain under James-1 and was a backwater until a gay Dutch guy took the place over... didn't really pick up until his lesbian sister in law took over... then a bunch of inbred-Germans brought the place to Greatness.
DBP - France was looking for terms already, killed scores of Algerians and props up dictators in Africa and now is all about putting moderate islamists in power.

Event - a few background facts - track course of history and then try and link back to said day and ignore any point to the contrary or intervening factor. For extra points pick less well known battle. Far more arbitrary than "best tank" and without the fun of comparing guns and without displaying the trivia knowledge of seven degrees of Kevin Bacon.

Last edited by troung; 13 Sep 14, at 02:54.

To sit down with these men and deal with them as the representatives of an enlightened and civilized people is to deride ones own dignity and to invite the disaster of their treachery - General Matthew Ridgway

I always find most decisive battles in history discussions end up as people trying to divine greater meaning out of a given afternoon. Take centuries of warfare among societies and try and grab a few battles and then try and create higher meaning and shoe horn relevant topics into their outcome.

Waterloo - the Prussians/Russians had already smashed the Grand Armee and his German vassals had defected. Article guy pulled a bunch of crap out about this leading to democracy...
Vienna-1 - they came back and anyways had to deal with Turko-Persian, Polish, Russian... etc.. enemies...
Manzikert - Byzantines went on for four centuries.
Talas - both sides ended up losing Central Asia anyways. Hell Turks ended up ruling the Islamic World and extorted the Tang.
Nuking Japan - they were already looking for a way out
Hastings - yawn... err... England ended up with a French speaking elite for some centuries then ummm...yeah... I don't get it...
The Armada - England went on to seek less than favorable terms with Spain under James-1 and was a backwater until a gay Dutch guy took the place over... didn't really pick up until his lesbian sister in law took over... then a bunch of inbred-Germans brought the place to Greatness.
DBP - France was looking for terms already, killed scores of Algerians and props up dictators in Africa and now is all about putting moderate islamists in power.

Event - a few background facts - track course of history and then try and link back to said day and ignore any point to the contrary or intervening factor. For extra points pick less well known battle. Far more arbitrary than "best tank" and without the fun of comparing guns and without displaying the trivia knowledge of seven degrees of Kevin Bacon.

You mention a few on my list

1. Salamis- preserved the nucleus of Western Culture
2. Alesia- Rise of Julius Caesar and the foundation of Imperial Rome
3. Actium- The birth of Imperial Rome
4. Conquest of Qi (bloodless)- unification of China
5. Manzikert- Arrival of the Turks
6. Defeat of the Spanish Armada- Birth of British Sea Power
7. Yorktown- Birth of America
8. Battle of the Masurian Lakes- Moltke the Younger panics and dooms Germany in the West
9. Pearl Harbor- Do not wake sleeping giants!
10. Hiroshima- nuclear war, nuff said...

Manzikert was less about the Byzantine defeat than the arrival of the Turks.

Nuking Japan- japn may have wanted out, but the fall out from the attacks are still with us today. Hiroshima and Nagasaki heradled the birth of the atomic age and the ability to wage war on a scale never even envisioned before.

Armada, it is the birth of British Sea Power above the level of privateering and the victory there lead directly to the first large scale action by what would become the Royal avy (even though it ended in defeat).

What about the other battles like Actium or Alesia? While I wholeheartedly agree many battles are over stated or given weight for the wrong reasons, some are hinges on which history forever turned.

Threw up names of battles that end up on these lists... in this case absolutely nothing personal

Manzikert was less about the Byzantine defeat than the arrival of the Turks.

They had been in charge of Iraq, Iran, Syria... etc... already by that point... and were campaigning in the Caucasus and Anatolia.

Nuking Japan- japn may have wanted out, but the fall out from the attacks are still with us today. Hiroshima and Nagasaki heradled the birth of the atomic age and the ability to wage war on a scale never even envisioned before.

Japan wanted out and making the bombs put us in the atomic age not flattening two cities of a practically defeated nation which was trying to bow out.

Armada, it is the birth of British Sea Power above the level of privateering and the victory there lead directly to the first large scale action by what would become the Royal avy (even though it ended in defeat).

The Armada campaign didn't win the war, the RN had mixed fortunes for the rest of the conflict, and the RN sank back into nothing under her immediate successors. Henry the 8th really got things started, the early Stuarts let it linger, and Cromwell and my favorite King of England Charles II helped put the RN on the course it went on and even then it was amateur hour, Charles was better at making bastards then actually beating the Dutch. Louis 14 was checked at sea by an Anglo-Dutch navy.

Alesia

He massacred a bunch of Gauls in a wooden fort. The political tricks he played and battles he fought afterwards to seize power and all are what got him in power in a "Republic" which was anything but. And even then he had a pretty short run at the top. Important for Caesar, yeah... as far as changing the course of world history... a big mehh...

The following battle was part of the process which led to the vestiges of the Republic being swept away...

Actium

One of two potential dictators wins out, important for their war yes. In the aftermath, with careful political maneuvering, Rome makes the final move from a narrow senatorial/military elite bent on military expansion to a military dictatorship, drawing support from the same classes, bent on military expansion. See above.

Other battles like the following also end up on lists....
- Agincourt - the whole longbow thing... forgetting that French cavalry supported by artillery ended up riding down longbow men at the end of that war.
- Stalingrad - big loss of troops but Germany did go back on the offensive again.
- 100 hour ground campaign/73 eastings/CNN camera crew collecting prisoners - major world power beats up a nation which spent 6 years losing to Iran and then flexes for the cameras.
- Panipat-3 - Seen among many Indian historians as paving the way for England. Afghans stomp a mud hole in the Marathas in practically every field engagement up to that point, then leave and collapse on their own, Maratha's rebuild and improve their military, then get stomped by the British a couple decades later.
- Brietfeld-1 - Historians wrongly credit Gustav with every innovation of the preceding century. Swedes beat Tilly one more time, drop one to Wallenstein, lose their king in the next one and then start into a slump for six or seven years (Saxony and Brandenburg end up fighting for the Emperor) until Torstenson takes over and France gets deeper in the war. Armies have wildly different ratios of horse to foot at Brietfield-2 a decade later than at the first battle or how they would decades later.
- Bleinhem - Louis wasn't after world domination and got the Spanish succession in the end.

Last edited by troung; 13 Sep 14, at 19:59.

To sit down with these men and deal with them as the representatives of an enlightened and civilized people is to deride ones own dignity and to invite the disaster of their treachery - General Matthew Ridgway

Threw up names of battles that end up on these lists... in this case absolutely nothing personal

eh, didn't take it personal

They had been in charge of Iraq, Iran, Syria... etc... already by that point... and were campaigning in the Caucasus and Anatolia.

Its still the arrival of the Turks (to stay) in Anatolia with all that means for world history. A story that is still being written.

Japan wanted out and making the bombs put us in the atomic age not flattening two cities of a practically defeated nation which was trying to bow out.

We can unleash all sorts of horrors but we aren't in the biological warfare age... The use of the bombs, that raw demonstration of pure energy forever opened a new chapter in mankinds story of war.

The Armada campaign didn't win the war, the RN had mixed fortunes for the rest of the conflict, and the RN sank back into nothing under her immediate successors. Henry the 8th really got things started, the early Stuarts let it linger, and Cromwell and my favorite King of England Charles II helped put the RN on the course it went on and even then it was amateur hour, Charles was better at making bastards then actually beating the Dutch. Louis 14 was checked at sea by an Anglo-Dutch navy.

Its still the birth of the RN as a real power and all that, that means.

He massacred a bunch of Gauls in a wooden fort. The political tricks he played and battles he fought afterwards to seize power and all are what got him in power in a "Republic" which was anything but. And even then he had a pretty short run at the top. Important for Caesar, yeah... as far as changing the course of world history... a big mehh...

Defeat at Alesia may have killed him, or at least cast him into obscurity. His votry there set off machinations in Rome that lead to his rise and more importantly set up the stage for the birth of Imperial Rome.

The following battle was part of the process which led to the vestiges of the Republic being swept away...

To an extent, but it was also the largest naval battle ever fought and the last time for centuries that the med would see large scale naval conflict. A peaceful med and a unified empire are required ingredients for the birth of the Pax Romana and the lasting impacts that had on the development of Western thought and theology.

[quote]One of two potential dictators wins out, important for their war yes. In the aftermath, with careful political maneuvering, Rome makes the final move from a narrow senatorial/military elite bent on military expansion to a military dictatorship, drawing support from the same classes, bent on military expansion. See above.[/quote}

Given the wide changes Octavian made to nearly the whole of Roman Society it was a bit more than zero sum regardless of who won.

Other battles like the following also end up on lists....
- Agincourt - the whole longbow thing... forgetting that French cavalry supported by artillery ended up riding down longbow men at the end of that war.

Agree

- Stalingrad - big loss of troops but Germany did go back on the offensive again.

Moscow and Pearl Harbor were the only real battles that had the war hinging on them. Moscow if Germany lost and Pearl Harbor regardless of outcome.

[quote]- 100 hour ground campaign/73 eastings/CNN camera crew collecting prisoners - major world power beats up a nation which spent 6 years losing to Iran and then flexes for the cameras.[/qupte]

Its impact of late stage Soviet affairs is probalby more important than beating up Saddam. As are the fact that even with such a lopsided victory, we could never really win the peace.

- Panipat-3 - Seen among many Indian historians as paving the way for England. Afghans stomp a mud hole in the Marathas in practically every field engagement up to that point, then leave and collapse on their own, Maratha's rebuild and improve their military, then get stomped by the British a couple decades later.

England with out India is a European power, with India she was the worlds first super power. Indian economic contributions to Britain and the need to protect that golden egg not only offset the lost of the Americas but fueled almost the entire British Empire. Its debatable that England can fight and win WWI without India. In addtion without the resources of India, England can't really meddle in China (and thus encourage other European and American powers to do the same) and China would have taken a very different path.

- Brietfeld-1 - Historians wrongly credit Gustav with every innovation of the preceding century. Swedes beat Tilly one more time, drop one to Wallenstein, lose their king in the next one and then start into a slump for six or seven years (Saxony and Brandenburg end up fighting for the Emperor) until Torstenson takes over and France gets deeper in the war. Armies have wildly different ratios of horse to foot at Brietfield-2 a decade later than at the first battle or how they would decades later.
- Bleinhem - Louis wasn't after world domination and got the Spanish succession in the end.

Its still the arrival of the Turks (to stay) in Anatolia with all that means for world history. A story that is still being written.

It was a series of other campaigns which put them in charge of the place. They had scored victories before then and suffered defeats after that battle in the quest to seize Anatolia.

Its still the birth of the RN as a real power and all that, that means.

It comes down to historians cherry picking a victory from a conflict then (in very British style) ignoring the rest of the war and the fact the RN languished for decades afterwards. It was later rulers who really did "something" with naval power.

Defeat at Alesia may have killed him, or at least cast him into obscurity. His votry there set off machinations in Rome that lead to his rise and more importantly set up the stage for the birth of Imperial Rome.

His rise was secured by victories against other Romans, killing tribesmen in a wooden fort wasn't anymore a hinge the world changed on then his victory at Bibracte (sp?). He fought a series of other battles to secure power, did a bunch of horse trading, then got murdered.

To an extent, but it was also the largest naval battle ever fought and the last time for centuries that the med would see large scale naval conflict. A peaceful med and a unified empire are required ingredients for the birth of the Pax Romana and the lasting impacts that had on the development of Western thought and theology.

The Med was only bloody because of a Roman civil war. You can hang the peaceful Med on killing the Carthagians, conquering Italy, beating the Macedonians, other Greeks, etc... Rome wasn't built or secured in a day.

Moscow and Pearl Harbor were the only real battles that had the war hinging on them. Moscow if Germany lost and Pearl Harbor regardless of outcome.'

Had Moscow fell there is still no guarantee that war would have had a different outcome and even with that defeat Germany was able to conduct other major offensives. Pearl Harbor the Japanese sunk a bunch of ships, then took a bunch of colonies and ended up being ground down. By the same logic Germany dumping down convicts on its side of the Polish border was a hinge in world history because England declared war on Germany or Brandenburgers capturing bridges to enable Panzers to rush in.

Given the wide changes Octavian made to nearly the whole of Roman Society it was a bit more than zero sum regardless of who won.

The Republic was pretty much dead. One side won the battle, then won a few more battles and then politically maneuvered at home and tore down the final vestiges of the republic then made a bunch of changes. That victory broke the back of Anthony's armies but many other things happened in the meantime for Octavian to set up and manage his dictatorship,

England with out India is a European power, with India she was the worlds first super power. Indian economic contributions to Britain and the need to protect that golden egg not only offset the lost of the Americas but fueled almost the entire British Empire. Its debatable that England can fight and win WWI without India. In addtion without the resources of India, England can't really meddle in China (and thus encourage other European and American powers to do the same) and China would have taken a very different path.

My point was it has been thrown up as something more than it was - the Afghans won and then left, the Marathas lost and rebuilt an even better army which then lost to the British who had been setting up in Bengal.

Wars which changed history would be subjective, end up being Euro-centric, and reaching - individual battles from the entire world, over 4 thousand years of history and trying to state they changed the course of human history is rather nonsensical.

Last edited by troung; 14 Sep 14, at 01:21.

To sit down with these men and deal with them as the representatives of an enlightened and civilized people is to deride ones own dignity and to invite the disaster of their treachery - General Matthew Ridgway

It was a series of other campaigns which put them in charge of the place. They had scored victories before then and suffered defeats after that battle in the quest to seize Anatolia.

sigh

It comes down to historians cherry picking a victory from a conflict then (in very British style) ignoring the rest of the war and the fact the RN languished for decades afterwards. It was later rulers who really did "something" with naval power.

But it was the defeat of the Armada that let the genie out of the bottle.

His rise was secured by victories against other Romans, killing tribesmen in a wooden fort wasn't anymore a hinge the world changed on then his victory at Bibracte (sp?). He fought a series of other battles to secure power, did a bunch of horse trading, then got murdered.

Killing those Gauls is what set the stage so he could go on to defeat Ptolemy. Had he been defeated at that battle he would have died or been disgraced.

The Med was only bloody because of a Roman civil war. You can hang the peaceful Med on killing the Carthagians, conquering Italy, beating the Macedonians, other Greeks, etc... Rome wasn't built or secured in a day.

At the time of Actium the med had only been pirate free for a short time. Had Antony won and thus been able to keep the eastern portions (richest) of the blooming empire history would have seen the Pax Romana.

Had Moscow fell there is still no guarantee that war would have had a different outcome and even with that defeat Germany was able to conduct other major offensives. Pearl Harbor the Japanese sunk a bunch of ships, then took a bunch of colonies and ended up being ground down. By the same logic Germany dumping down convicts on its side of the Polish border was a hinge in world history because England declared war on Germany or Brandenburgers capturing bridges to enable Panzers to rush in.

Without Moscow the entire Soviet war effort becomes unhinged. The nexus of industry, rail, communications and government in Moscow made it THE TARGET. Hitler missed this and it cost him the war. On Pearl Harbor, once Japan attacked she ended American isolation. It didn't matter how many ships she sank or did not sink, it was the act itself. How ever the loss of the battleships at Pearl Harbor is still a world changing event in its own right. Even today the dominant questions for the Chinese vis a vis America is how to keep American carriers away from Asia Pacific region and how to counter a US-Japanese military alliance. We were forced to go have on the carriers because we lost the ability to wage an effective battle line strategy.

The Republic was pretty much dead. One side won the battle, then won a few more battles and then politically maneuvered at home and tore down the final vestiges of the republic then made a bunch of changes. That victory broke the back of Anthony's armies but many other things happened in the meantime for Octavian to set up and manage his dictatorship,

Sigh, without the Victory no Pax Roman or Augustinian reforms to Roman society. What might have replaced it if Antony won it all or only kept the Eastern Half would be far different from what we got. Pivotal events are less important for the immediate effects and more important for how they nudge history down a particular path. I think you make this basic mistake in many of your analysis's of pivotal battles. Take BDP, sure the French were beat but thats not why it matters. BDP insured that in 1968 Giap would launch a massive offensive at Khe Sanh and Tet. He lsot these fights but the media exposure lead to LBJ setting aside dreams of a second term leading to Nixon and all that follows from that. No BDP and its likely no Reagan, no Bush 41, no ODS, no Bush 43 no 9-11 etc. It set in motion a sequence of events that has impacted history forever. It was not just a local battle in an already lost war.

My point was it has been thrown up as something more than it was - the Afghans won and then left, the Marathas lost and rebuilt an even better army which then lost to the British who had been setting up in Bengal.

Wars which changed history would be subjective, end up being Euro-centric, and reaching - individual battles from the entire world, over 4 thousand years of history and trying to state they changed the course of human history is rather nonsensical.[/QUOTE]

But it was the defeat of the Armada that let the genie out of the bottle.

She already had a fleet before the battle. Her dad set up naval patrols, England wasn't the grand naval power for another hundred plus years after that battle. They had a fleet before the campaign, had used the fleet before that campaign, and then ended up not winning said conflict, then were in a funk for decades.

Killing those Gauls is what set the stage so he could go on to defeat Ptolemy. Had he been defeated at that battle he would have died or been disgraced.

Had he not beaten Ptolemy he would have ended up with his head on a spike. Had his mother strangled him in the cradle we may all be speaking Gaul.

On Pearl Harbor, once Japan attacked she ended American isolation. It didn't matter how many ships she sank or did not sink, it was the act itself.

America wasn't isolationist.

How ever the loss of the battleships at Pearl Harbor is still a world changing event in its own right. Even today the dominant questions for the Chinese vis a vis America is how to keep American carriers away from Asia Pacific region and how to counter a US-Japanese military alliance. We were forced to go have on the carriers because we lost the ability to wage an effective battle line strategy.

It's a two-fer then though Japan spearheaded the attack with carriers in the first place.

Pivotal events are less important for the immediate effects and more important for how they nudge history down a particular path.

The fact these topics try to divine what was nudged out of whatever the hot topic of the decade is shows how its little better then looking at cracks in bones over a fire waiting a couple of decades then predicting what already happened.

Take BDP, sure the French were beat but thats not why it matters. BDP insured that in 1968 Giap would launch a massive offensive at Khe Sanh and Tet. He lsot these fights but the media exposure lead to LBJ setting aside dreams of a second term leading to Nixon and all that follows from that. No BDP and its likely no Reagan, no Bush 41, no ODS, no Bush 43 no 9-11 etc. It set in motion a sequence of events that has impacted history forever. It was not just a local battle in an already lost war.

A series of other events occurred between the French deciding to drop paratroopers into that valley, the USA's war in Vietnam being fought in the manner it was, and Bin Laden ramming planes into the WTC/Pentagon. Could draw the same 50 degrees to today from any skirmish.

Like I said its seven degrees of Kevin Bacon without the payoff of displaying real trivia knowledge.

Last edited by troung; 14 Sep 14, at 18:16.

To sit down with these men and deal with them as the representatives of an enlightened and civilized people is to deride ones own dignity and to invite the disaster of their treachery - General Matthew Ridgway

I quote from CJS Fuller's 'Decisive Battles of the Western World' (Volume 3) on the Battle of Warsaw 1920;

The influence of this decisive battle on history was fully appreciated by Tuchachevski, who lost it, and by Lord D’Abernon, who watched it. Yet, strange to say, its importance was little grasped by western Europe, and since has remained little noticed. Soon after his defeat Tukhachevski wrote:

“In all European countries Capitalism was staggering; the workers were lifting their head and rushing to arms. There is not the slightest doubt that, had we been victorious on the Vistula, the revolution would have set light to the entire continent of Europe….Exportation of revolution is possible…and had it not been for our strategical mistakes and our defeat on the field of battle, perhaps the Polish war would have been the link which would have united the revolution of October to the revolution of Western Europe….there cannot be the slightest doubt that had se succeeded in disrupting the Polish Army of bourgeouis and lords, the revolution of the Polish class workers would have been a fait accompli, and the conflagration would not have been halted on the Polish frontiers. Like an overwhelming storm it would have swept into Western Europe. The Red Army will never forget this experiment in exported revolution, and if ever the bourgeoisie of Europe invites us to new struggles, the Red Army will succeed in destroying it and fomenting revolution in Europe.”

Later, in an article published in the Bazetta Poliska of August 17, 1930, Lord D’Abernon set down his judgment as follows:

“The history of contemporary civilization knows no event of greater importance than the Battle of Warsaw, 1920, and none of which the significance is less appreciated. The danger menacing Europe at that moment was parried, and the whole episode forgotten. Had the battle been a Bolshevik victory, it would have been a turning point in European history, for there is no doubt at all that the whole of Central Europe would at that moment have been opened to the influence of Communist propaganda and a Soviet invasion, which it could with difficulty have resisted…. The events of 1920 also deserve attention for another reason; victory was attained, above all, thanks to the strategical genius of one man and thanks to the carrying through of a manoeuver so dangerous as to necessitate not only genius, but heroism…It should be the task of political writers to explain to European opinion that Poland saved Europe in 1920, and that it is necessary to keep Poland powerful and in harmonious relations with Western European civilization. For Poland is the barrier to the everlasting peril of an Asiatic invasion.”